<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (7) TMI 1992 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796106</link>
    <description>Prior-period expenditure is allowable where the liability crystallises during the relevant year. Special leave petitions challenging the application of this principle were dismissed because the issue was no longer open to debate, following earlier decisions concerning the same question. Special leave petitions against penalty imposed for concealment in relation to additions later deleted were also dismissed, as the penalty proceedings were consequential to the underlying additions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2026 08:27:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=914490" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 1992 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796106</link>
      <description>Prior-period expenditure is allowable where the liability crystallises during the relevant year. Special leave petitions challenging the application of this principle were dismissed because the issue was no longer open to debate, following earlier decisions concerning the same question. Special leave petitions against penalty imposed for concealment in relation to additions later deleted were also dismissed, as the penalty proceedings were consequential to the underlying additions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796106</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>